Sunday, November 18, 2012

The Proud Democrat Joins "No Labels"

I supported Bill Bloomfield not just because he was not Waxman, although in
many ways that was reason enough. Bloomfield's support for Prop 32, for
electoral reform, for refusing any campaign donations, all resonated with me. One
of his ideas that was dead on arrival for me, though, was his co-founded
interest group: "No Labels".

"No Labels" as a concept and a movement is essentially flawed.
According to the "No Labels" convocation, because our politicians are
so resolutely locked into not getting anything done, including Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell's pledge to make President Obama a "one-term"
President, they are not ever going to get anything done. One caucus has signed
pledges refusing to raise taxes. The opposing caucus refuses to touch
entitlements. So begins the gridlock.

I propose that if Congress gets busy ending the spending spree and cutting
the tax rates and the size of the federal government, all of us would be better
off, even the environmental lobbies, who can get more respect from their state
legislatures than the federal government, in my view.

"No Labels" claims that the pary structure is forcing members of
Congress not to work together at all, and thus a third party alternative must
emerge, one which is committed to getting Congress back to work, refusing to
take sides and thus get every side to advance. The very moniker invites
mockery, as "No Labels" is in itself a label. This frustrated sent-up
reminds me of the rock band "The Lone Rangers" -- none of whom were
alone. An organization or an interest group which invites questions and
concerns from the first mention of its name should incite further introspection
among its members.

"No Labels" wants to end "the gridlock". Like many
limited government types, I love gridlock. Congress not even showing up much of
the time might be better, but when the legislators get together and do nothing,
our pocket books and our livelihood remain safe. The movement also claims that
procedural reforms must be enacted. The gridlock in this country has nothing to
do with the political process, with the Constitution of the United States. The
problem lies with the people themselves, in that individual voters and
constituencies are voicing their opinions and casting their votes, which in
turn generates the gridlock.

This is not due to some failing in the voting public, but in the inherent
tensions of representative democracy. In one sense, we send our representatives
to govern us; in another sense, we send them to Congress to do what we want
them to. A true statesman will make choices that will sometimes inevitably
offend the sense and sensibility of his constituents. For this reason, the
Framers authorized the legislatures, not the citizens themselves, to elect the
Senators; the Electoral College selected the President, not the popular vote.
Popular sentiment finds its voice in the House of Representatives, and only
there.

Another concern with "No Labels" falls on this issue of
representation. The organization claims "People First" as its motto.
The exact meaning and purpose of this pledge invites more scrutiny instead of
certainty. The Constitution was enacted in order to form a "more perfect
union", not please the interests of the "people".
"Establishing justice", tranquility, the blessings of liberty, often
entails constraining the power of all interests, the special and the general,
the elite and the popular. Besides, our leaders take an oath to defend the
Constitution, not to represent the "people." Too many of our youth,
and a growing number of the current electorate, are not receiving from our
politicians or our educational institutions the proper role of government: to
protect our rights. Governments are instituted to protect our rights, not
provide for our material wants. "People first" makes as much sense as
"No Labels" functions as a label, except while the first phrase is too
vague, the second is just plain contradictory.

After heavy campaigning and threats from voters and the press, Henry Waxman
found that he had to reach out of his old politicking shell. He joined "No
Labels", yet in another show of inconsistency, he went all over the
district claiming to be a proud Democrat". How does the Congressman
reconcile his new membership with his long-standing boast throughout the
campaign? 38 years of marching in line with his party, which should be commend
on strict standards of loyalty, does not translate too well into a new term
with gridlock at an all time high. The level of compromise needed to get
anything done -- including the menacing “fiscal cliff” -- remains unprecedented
for old and new entering Congress.

Henry Waxman, the "proud Democrat" enters Congress with a
commitment to serve the people. Did he do that for the past thirty-eight years?
Ask the veterans still waiting for adequate housing. Ask the postal workers and
residents in Venice and Santa Monica who fear that they will have no neighborly
facility to drop their mail. Ask the residents of West LA, who are still
waiting for a better route to the sea besides the seventeen mile bump-and-grind
of Wilshire Blvd.